Slashdot Mirror
Porn Found On L.A. Obscenity Case Judge's Website
Stanislav_J writes "In a bizarre revelation, the judge who is presiding over the Isaacs obscenity trial in Los Angeles was found to have sexually explicit material on a publicly-accessible website. Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged that he had posted the materials, but says he believed the site to be for personal storage only, and not accessible to the public (though he does acknowledge sharing some of the material with friends). The files included images of masturbation, public sex, contortionist sex, a transsexual striptease, a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows, and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. The latter two are especially ironic in that the trial involves the distribution of allegedly obscene sexual fetish videos depicting bestiality, among other things, by Ira Isaacs, an L.A. filmmaker."
Stanislav_J continues:
"The judge has blocked public access to the site (putting up a graphic that reads, 'Ain't nothin' here — y'all best be movin' on, compadre').
Isaacs' defense had welcomed the assignment of Kozinski to the case because of his long record of defending the First Amendment, but the startling news about his website (the revelation of which seems to have been interestingly timed to coincide with today's scheduled opening arguments) now have many folks calling for him to be removed from the case. There is no indication that any of the images on Kozinski's site would be considered obscene or illegal. But certainly, one has to believe that most would consider this at the very least to represent a serious conflict of interest given the nature of the trial."
Isaacs' defense had welcomed the assignment of Kozinski to the case because of his long record of defending the First Amendment, but the startling news about his website (the revelation of which seems to have been interestingly timed to coincide with today's scheduled opening arguments) now have many folks calling for him to be removed from the case. There is no indication that any of the images on Kozinski's site would be considered obscene or illegal. But certainly, one has to believe that most would consider this at the very least to represent a serious conflict of interest given the nature of the trial."
Now with animal acts.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
irony?
Well, this will be interesting. I wonder if this will get used against him (i.e. he gets called a hypocrite), or if it'll affect his judgment regarding the case he has right now.
Cynical Idealist
I would certainly want judge Kozinski presiding over my case. Just as if the RIAA was on my case I would want a judge who was familiar with and used bittorrent.
Tsk, tsk. Bad submitter. How could you have posted this without the URL? I mean... we need to be able to judge the material for ourselves, right?
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
HIND sight or HIND site? Which is 20/20? Both!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I'm pretty sure he's gonna have to recuse himself now. _
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
"a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows"
*blink*
*blinkblink*
*blink*
What?
I dare you to find a public servant's computer with out porn in it. I'm pretty sure computer shipped to the government by contract are to come with porn.
He should be charged with, and convicted of the same charges as any other person who would have had that on a publicly available website.
Otherwise, anyone can use the "I thought it was a personal storage area" defense, and get away with it.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
If you are a judge presiding over a case involving the illegal distribution of fetish porn, you should probably take down your own web site illegally distributing fetish porn first.
I bet the reaction of the community would be much more drastic if
"his long record of defending the First Amendment" was not mentioned.
Where is the irony? I do not see it. Porn-loving judge defends "first amendment". I would call it "integrity".
The wolf was appointed to herd the sheep. Call me back when man bites dog.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is going to provide great fodder for all the comedy shows and FOX News. Especially considering the judge was telling jurors that there were about 4 hours of video and he'd be watching it with them since it's part of his job.
It's stuff like this that probably makes a writer's gig at the Daily Show pretty easy from time to time.
Seriously, what would you even add as an embellishment to make this more hilarious?
What better way to become a better judge of obscenity than to immerse yourself in relevant material. Makes sense to me in an admittedly warped way.
- Toby
Don't get too titillated now
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
I would have to say that the defendant's attorney definitely got his client into the right court. Sadly for said defendant, the judge will have to recuse himself now. Unless,the judge rules that it is not pornography, and then everybody goes home happy; except the prosecutors, of course.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I hope someone made a private backup of his stash. We can then bring the site back up on a server in Armenia.
Irony implies you wouldn't expect judges to have midget transexual transpecie gay porn.
The hyperlink to the site (http://alex.kozinski.com/) is in the sentence that indicates that the judge took the stuff down. Nothing to see there. The Wayback Machine shows several versions of the site dating back to 2004, none of the juicy stuff is there.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
good one universe, good one...
I used to be with IT..now IT seems strange and scary to me.
...a judge will actually be an expert in the specialty area the case deals with.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Nothing from the site was illegal however. (aside from possible copyright infringement if he didn't have the rights to distribute the photos, which I don't think was your idea of illegal)
Should a judge also recuse himself from presiding over auto theft cases if he should happen like cars?
Does liking porn predispose him to favoring the defendant in an illegal porn case? More importantly, does it do so to a greater degree than being a defender of the First Amendment?
censorship is a special wonderful combination of hypocrisy and a lack fo self awareness and a lack of awareness of true human nature
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Good luck finding a judge who can truthfully say they have never had any interest in pornography.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Pics or it didn't happen.
(Had to, sorry.)
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The ninth circuit is about to lose a defender of free speech because he had the savvy to run a web site but not enough to know how it really works. His collection of "porn" are things that other people sent him, the kind of crap that clogs email systems everywhere. It is impossible to have an email address and not have it sent to you. Someone you know will send it along. His mistake was putting it where it could be seen by the same kinds of fanatics that are pushing the "war on porn" in the first place. Ignore the fact that they routinely get busted like Jimmy Swaggart did. Kozinski thought people would not find it because there was no link to the directory ... ugh! He's exactly the kind of level headed person the courts need to rule fairly on these kinds of cases.
Like the fine article quotes him saying:
Those were fine sentiments when he was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but it's bad news under a regime that wants to be above the law. There you will find your animals, those who want to live by tooth and claw.
he should have asked reiser how to permanently delete files.
i know, i know: its in bad taste.
I fail to see where the conflict of interest is here. So he likes porn. Yeah, he's MALE.
What would be the 'right' judge to preside over this case? A known prude who prays to God at least seven times a week and has publically stated that pornography is a sin?
So he has a life outside the court room. Big fucking deal. There's no money involved in it for him, I'm sure, and he probably doesn't know the defendant either. Where is the conflict of interest?!
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Isaacs should have checked his billing system... He could have been found "Not-Guilty" by now. Well at least "case dismissed" due to a threat of certain info getting released to the press and his Wife :D:D
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
A couple of lawyer buddies of mine tell me that they are coached in law school to take anything from the 9th Circuit Court with many grains of salt. That may be the most overturned legal entity on the planet. So a foolish pervert is the chief judge. Huh. What do you know?
Carry on (and mirror please).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's to betting the defendant gets off as a result of this...
Politicians (judges included since they run for office via the same dog and pony show as legislators) are a screwed up bunch of people. They assume everyone else is as screwed up as they are, so they come up with laws to take away our rights. They're like clergy who abuse children and in their guilt scream "Sinners!" from the pulpit at everyone in the pews, assuming they are also doing disgusting things. What else do you expect from people who just want to extract money from the rest of us while creating nothing. It takes a strange mind to pass out a collection plate while calling you a sinner, or tax you while taking away your rights.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
"I will be there watching with you. This is part of the job we're doing.", i bet he will ;)
Something comes to mind about stones and glass houses... Now what was that again...
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
The bad news: the site is down. "Safari can't open the page 'http://alex.kozinski.com/' because it could not connect to the server 'alex.kozinski.com'"
The good news: it's in the Wayback machine.
The bad news: the Wayback machine just shows "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre" on the main page, from 2004 through the last snapshot in 2005. (The news story saying that this is a recent change is apparently wrong).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I bet 100% of the material on the website is the same material that moves around the "have you seen this" emails forwarded on by every unknowing idiot new to the Internet. I recognize the description of the animal video as the one where the drunk guy is trying to get away from the donkey that is trying to mount him. I also know the woman wearing the cow body paint circulated in a similar email. The vague descriptions on the others also sound as if they are the same type of material that gets forwarded around. I wouldn't be surprised if every adult who has ever used the Internet has seen the material in question, that the judge has some online storage with the material in question isn't surprising to me, and certainly not a reason to dismiss him from the case.
At the bare minimum I would suggest the material in question makes him much more applicable to judge a case involving bestiality because he should be able to recognize the difference between protected speech and images (those emails classify as such) and obscene material.
you don't judge porn, porn Judges, er, cows?
E
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
...the Aristocrats
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
The case is about fetish porn, he has fetish porn in his wonderful collection.
Anonymous Coward
I don't get how a government can even try to 'standardize' on something like sex. Isn't that what's so great about sex, that it's *not* like a lunch line, where everyone gets the same food? Variety is the spice of life.
P.S. Before you judge my own sexual desires and fetishes, I ask you to let it go and ask yourself if it's even necessary. It's not my point to try and "legalize" beastiality or anything of the sort - I just think it's kind of lame to try and tell someone what is "ok" sexually, and what isn't (as long as nobody/nothing gets hurt or is forced to do something against their will - that's a completely different story). It reminds me of the "old days" when certain sex positions were illegal.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
1. The case is about public obscenity.
2. The case itself would provide a precidence for the judge's own defense in his ensuing criminal public obscenity trial.
3. Conflict of interest established.
A judge that actively uses cocaine or marijuana cannot preside over a case involving drug use for the same reason. If the materials in the case (and the judge's website) are indeed illegal, that would cause a conflict of interest. The reason for calling something like this a conflict of interest is to prevent the judge from being sympathetic to either side in a case and screwing up the proceedings.
This often happens in family court, where the conflict of having a family cannot be avoided. Which is why children often end up with biological parents and mothers always get custody, despite the father always having played an equal role in the child rearing.
Capcha: Afraid
I find that America will be better off when we soon realize that we as adults are children afraid of our own sexual fantasies and the most important action we must take is to simply act as if the naughty naughty doesnt happen. That way we can legally penalize anyone that dares enjoy sex in ways we ourselves wished we could. This judge clearly has a sexual organ, and i move to have him removed from the bench and the legal justice system as we know it. What will the world think of us, when they find out this judge enjoys sex! WHAT i ask you?
Oh yeah... and dont forget... We do not wipe our own asses... that is dirty.
The thing that should really bother you about this, is that somebody other than the Judge,
has seen what was on a Judge's computer. The "porn" angle is pretty irrelevant compared to
somebody having access to information that is potentially of the highest possible confidentiality.
Violations of attorney-client privilege is a sufficient risk to have killers on the street and
child molesters working in your kid's day care center. When you're talking about the privilege afforded
to a *judge* it's even higher stakes.
So, how did it come to pass that a *judge's* computer became open to inspection for somebody to find the "porn?"
I know if I were a judge, there would be all kinds of juicy things just begging to be disseminated, because that's
how I'd catch the snoops.
Let the FCC control broadcast obscenity. Anything subscribed or unicasted on demand is fine.
Seriously, I get offended when people back off and hide things or pause to hold back words in the middle of a sentence while they do a quick replacement. I never say anything because it's futile and the world is a threatening place in that context anyway.
I once knew a girl that could curse really well. Like, she didn't hold shit back, she didn't throw "fuck" or "ass" or "shit" in every third word; but when she had something to say, she threw every emphasis in right where it belongs, actually using those words as intensifiers, creating interesting and amusing combination and even in some cases short streams of nonsense that still conveyed the proper emotion. It's like someone actually turned streams of obscenities into a fine art; I've never seen anyone else communicate so comfortably or so clearly.
We live in a world where sending an e-mail to your boss stating you "don't know what's wrong yet because there's too much shit to wade through" can instantly get you fired. We just use euphamisms to indicate obscene concepts rather than single "obscene" words. The concept of isolated obscenity is obscene; preventing people from sharing shit you don't like is an aberration and we should be ashamed as a people for supporting this sort of behavior.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"I do have a cause however: obscenity. ... I'm for it. Unfortunately, those who are fighting for this have to do it on the basis of free speech, but we all know what's really involved - dirty books are fun, that's all there is to it."
I am officially gone from
I don't know whether to be proud or ashamed at having seen a gallery of women just like that in my days on the interwebs...
Are you recusing yourself or are you just happy to see me?
I hope he throws the book at himself!
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
It sounds like the purveyors of porn have found a way to get government to host their media and keep their own bandwidth costs down.
Now gallop!
Yechh.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
doing some searches i found many of his website's domains documents in google cache and way back.. dont forget yahoo. evidentally someone had linked it to the public at one time.
Near the end of the article, it says the files included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files. Call the RIAA!
I'm not surprised. This is just another case of normal double standards we all are facing. So many people that make laws, enforce laws, judge laws and preach laws are the biggest hypocrites in which they can break the laws and the "rest of us" must obey the laws. We, the people of the US, need to force these people "eat their own dog food" and no people are above or below the law. Isn't that what we fought the Revolutionary War over?
Is there anyone on Slashdot who HASN'T seen Goatse multiple times?
see? there is justice in the world.
since all archive.org has for all the archives of alex.kozinski.com is pages saying
Ain't nothin' here.
Y'all best be movin' on, compadre.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Of course not. Only if the judge's website had illegal porn should he be considered to have a conflict of interest.
Almost anyone can be gotten for a felony on a daily basis for nearly any action or inaction.
We have IIRC over 40,000 Federal felony statutes, and hundreds of thousands of regulations. Combine that with prosecutors and cops who take an "expansive view" of the definitions of the words in the code and someone committed a felony last night in their sleep.
Wow I love reading these kinds of case studies. I would love it if you would blog / rcord this somewhere so that the rest of us could learn from it.
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
Are any of these images copyrighted? If the judge posted them on his web site, could the copyright holders sue him for infringement - "making available" copyrighted material?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Wow! Somebody in the world enjoys sexual material! Who would have thought it?!
Honestly guys, who the hell cares if somebody watches porn. If that's what he wants, it's what he wants. Fuck off, you.
:(){
This judge needs to be removed. What if a neked woman cow shows up in the courtroom? How's he going to react? Will he be distracted searching for his camera phone?
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
Cryptome posted a Yahoo cache of Kozinski's directory on its site.
Some of the more interesting file names include:
a.day.without.jews.wmv
BBCCopsUndies.wmv
Colo-rectalSurgeon.wav
isitmanisitwoman.pps
jewsdontcamp.mp3
piss_diver.wmv
Sheep_guy.jpg
show.them.to.me.wmv
testicle.interview.wmv
Looks like Jewish groups may not appreciate his sense of humor as well as the anti-porn crowd. At any rate, I don't see much of anything there that looks from the file names alone to be hardcore. It really does look like a directory of miscellaneous stuff that came in "Look at this!" and "Check THIS out!" e-mails from friends that he just stored on the site for easy access.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Wouldn't they have to check the porn archives of any judge that takes over the case? Just because they don't advertise their tastes, it doesn't mean they don't have any.
"If I can't control myself, then I'd better control someone else."
Looking back at the archive, it's said that for several years: http://web.archive.org/web/20050122134257/http://alex.kozinski.com/
[citation needed]
I believe the judge is novelist Jerzy Kozinski's son...and I seem to recall novels by the latter where women's lust reached new (for adolescent me, then) extremes :-)
With all the clamor of protest I hear, though, I cannot help wondering: just WHO, then, visit by the thousands all those extreme-porn sites, or buy Master Baiter Ira's videos?! :-P
Someone cache the website before it's too late!
Finding porn on a 9th circuit court judges computer is liking finding a playboy at a porn stars' house. Is this really news? The 9th circuit court is the most liberal court in the whole nation, and thus we presume, progressive. Judges looking at porn is a given, would you be a judge and not look at porn?
No no.. I know what that is, it's that video of a guy about to wank in a field, then a donkey spots him and tries to rape him. It's quite funny actually. Leave it to the media & journalists to twist the truth and make it sound worse than it really is.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBp6byWGrU
In an updated version of the story, the L.A. Times now reporting that the trial has been suspended:
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, granted a 48-hour stay in the obscenity trial of a Hollywood adult filmmaker after the prosecutor requested time to explore "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a . . . sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here."
One new wrinkle is that the good judge is at least partially trying to shift blame to his own son!
After publication of an latimes.com article about his website Wednesday morning, the judge offered another explanation for how the material might have been posted to the site. Tuesday evening he had told The Times that he had a clear recollection of some of the most objectionable material and that he was responsible for placing it on the Web. By Wednesday afternoon, as controversy about the website spread, Kozinski was seeking to shift responsibility, at least in part, to his adult son, Yale. ["Yale??"]
"Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it," Kozinski wrote in an e-mail to Abovethelaw.com, a legal news website. "I had no idea, but that sounds right because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there."
Or maybe it was one of his brothers, Harvard and Princeton....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Practicing animal husbandry is perfectly fine until they catch you red handed.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
...Safari won't work. You need to upgrade to CattleDrive. It'll connect straight off. Alternatively, you can paint Safari to look like a cow.
paintball
1. Owning a sports car is illegal. What constitutes "sporty" is left to individual interpretation however.
2. Buying, owning or selling certain sporty cars is illegal.
3. Displaying or allowing any one to gaze upon sports cars is illegal. For the definition of sporty see above.
That's just a start...
The judge collects cars, some of them surprisingly "sporty" (see above). His son is into cars too and shares his passion with his father. It's apparently a family activity. And this judge has made these possible sports cars available by displaying, and trading in cars. It's also likely he did this least sometimes at work using government equipment and networks.
Now, this judge is to determine if another car enthusiast is guilty for making and selling sports cars. Any conflict?
If a law is so stupid that we can't find anyone that's "innocent" the law needs to be nullified by the jury. But that a different topic. But there is a conflict as far as I can tell.
-[d]-
I think it's, "Obscenity is whatever gives the judge an erection."
That's why "illegally distributing", not "distributing illegal" :)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If cavorting with animals is not obscene, where do we draw that line? Do you have to smear yourself with feces first??
I think I have that 'chicks pained like cows' pic somewhere... *ponder*
I have spoken'eth.
FTA - Judge likes porn, has porn, has site with porn.
Me - So what? Who cares?
FTA - This presents a conflict of interest because he is handling a case which has to deal with porn.
Me - WTF? So if a judge drives a car and perhaps has a been now and then, he can't preside over a DWI case? If he owns a home with a flag on it, he can't preside over a case where someone is in violation of HOA rules by having a flag at their house? Come one.
In the words of Judge Kozinski, "The parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d. 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002).
As does this:
A woman called the police to report that a neighbor was standing nude in his bedroom window and she was offended and believed him guilty of indecent exposure.
The responding officer was unable, however, to see in the man's window at all.
"well, you have to stand on this stool, lean to the right and turn your head like this to see him."
If he's guilty of anything, it's attempting to use security thru obscurity. This is especially stupid when you've become a public figure, facing far more scrutiny than the average Joe Stickyank.
Interestingly, the question that's going unanswered is: Who were the people attempting to dig dirt on this man in the first place, and why? I'd look very closely at the snitches, and the first people to yell "recuse" -- attempting to influence the outcome of a federal trial is far more ethically disturbing than keeping a couple furry/cosplay/zoophile pictures on your webspace to laugh at.
Finally, the obscenity trial will have a jury verdict. The guilt/innocence decisions will not be made by the judge. Therefore, the court is correct, this is a personal matter.
I can see the fnords!
The judge isn't on trial. Besides, we prefer to be judged by our peers. Whats a better peer than one who indulges in the same activities?
I know I saw the pic years ago, but I had a bitch of a time Googling it.
This is the picture you want. It is almost certainly the pic on the judge's computer. Two women on all fours, body-painted like cows. They are completely nude and the camera angle is from behind, so it's extremely NSFW.
And while I'm at it, pictures one and two of individual nude women pained like cows. I suspect the bodyart in all three pics is from a single artist (notice the distinctive black collar on the wrists/ankles/neck, the bare-nipple holes, and the similar spot patterning).
And what the hell while I'm at it... during the cow search I came across a collection of 12 photos of women from PETA protesting the treatment of circus animals - the women are all caged, nearly nude, and painted like tigers. I think I'm going to have to start attending PETA rallies - apparently almost all PETA women are either really hot or really cute.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While we're all getting carried away assuming the worst and making animal pr0n jokes, Lessig actually provides some news "that matters" on the facts. Trouble is, no-one is going to remember the facts after the fact and assume he can't be trusted.
"Nothing alleged to have been on this server violates any law. (There's some ridiculous claim about "bestiality." But the video is not bestiality. It lives today on YouTube -- a funny (to some) short of a man defecating in a field, and then being chased by a donkey. "
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"